And then there's
this perspective on the issue, from Yves Smith, who used to
be the former Goldman Sachs corporate finance director.

Her op-ed is really interesting because it's the most boring
article we've read yet about the three woman's fascinating case.

It's not dull because - as she suggests - his article doesn't
mention the
dirty specifics of the case. (Actually hers does - and these
two
engaging
pieces on this issue, which we also mentioned above, don't.)

But because it's detached and hopeless that Goldman and Wall
Street will in our lifetime figure out a way to fix its inherent
sexism without implying that women are handicapped because they
need stats (read: help) to get to the top.

It's depressing because Smith comes from Goldman, so she might be
right.

She writes
a lot more, but this is one of her concluding points about
the discrimination case:

Conservatism and a common preference to hire in your own image
leads many firms to stick with their tried-and true profile,
which in most cases is Caucasian and male.

"Conservatism and a common preference to ..." Those are nicer
words for narcissism, a quality in both men and women, and a good
point.

They further prove her actual conclusion, which is that nothing
will change anytime soon as long as people are narcissists,
which, let's be honest - they always will be.

Boys see older men at the heads of Wall Street companies and want
to emulate them. Girls don't, so they don't as frequently aspire
to be like them.

We're not about to change human nature or evolve with fewer
narcissistic traits. So it seems to us that requiring every
company to employ at least some percentage of women to work in
the upper ranks is the only way to fix the repetitive and
damaging system.

Sure, women will have to work harder to prove that they didn't
just get handed the job because they're handicapped. And based on
the gender discrimination lawsuits we've seen, they'll probably
continue to be required to meet higher standards.